Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Evolved1]

Politician frustrate me when they use Christianity to suit them. I haven't watch Trumps state of the union address cause to be honest I'm not interested.

I did once speak to a son of a liberal pitician here who is a Christian and I asked him why his father didn't take the Christian position on assulym seekers and show more compassion to them. He said his dad personally feels compassion but won't take a stand in parliament because there are no votes to be gained.

Say a Christian Pollitican cones out and says 'I oppose same sex marriage and abortion but I'll do all I can for assulym seekers and homelessness' people might disagree but at least they would be being consistent on Christian values.

I appreciate the response. Some Christian values are more popular with voters than others, and Trump knows how to use them selectively for his advantage.

I remember Bill Clinton carrying a bible to church, so even the pretend Christian image is a longstanding tradition for successful politicians from both sides in the US.

It would be nice if more Christians could see through the charade....or is it that they do, but don't care as long as Trump throws them a bone every now and then?

 

[Evolved1]

i think you are confusing athiesm with agnosticism. Athiests dont just believe in no god, they believe there is only a natural plane of existence and no spiritial plane and they base this on evidence just like we do with belief in evolution and round earth. Most of us dont see round earth or evolution with out eyes. We see it with data and belief that images of the earth on tv from outer space are real. Athiests believe there is only a natural plane of existence because we have found no evidence through empirical testing that any phenomena on earth is a result of spirtual forces. None. Whenever scientists figure out how some phenomena works it turns out the answer is alway reducable down to four natural forces. Gravity, electromagnestism, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Scientists have now come up with an equation that explains everything and there is no god or spirual component to that equation. Its an amazing achievement of human kind. Thus we conclude that a natural state of existence is all there is.

Atheism is best defined as the lack of belief in gods, which isn't necessarily related to naturalism. I know atheists who believe in stupid s**t like astrology.

 

[Crankitup]

I stand by that claim.

You stand by what claim?

This one?

Your definition of atheism as a form of religious belief is disingenuous.

I repeat. I never defined it that way. In fact I didn't define it at all. If you can't even admit you were wrong to say what you did I can't see any point in discussing this issue any further with you.

 

[Evolved1]

You stand by what claim?

This one?



I repeat. I never defined it that way. In fact I didn't define it at all. If you can't even admit you were wrong to say what you did I can't see any point in discussing this issue any further with you.

Why do you lie?

 

[Evolved1]

If you weren't speaking of atheists, who were you speaking about? Belief there is no God...hmmm

Be careful or you'll tangle yourself up in your own lies.

 

[sdfc]

Your definition of atheism as a form of religious belief is disingenuous. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

I reckon Love were the better band

As much as I like Forever Changes, the Beatles were the better band. It's not even close.

 

[Crankitup]

Why do you lie?

Are you really that dim witted???

We're going around in circles because you obviously didn't get it the first time. I repeat .... #3,224.

 

[Evolved1]

View attachment 822993

Are you really that dim witted???

We're going around in circles because you obviously didn't get it the first time. I repeat .... #3,224.

Perhaps, but then again....isn't is possible we're going around in circles because of your refusal to acknowledge, much less explain, your own posts?

"An argument that absolutely no one has died because of a belief there is no God is just as facile as arguing that millions have died because of faith in God."
Please explain

Any objective observer would come to the conclusion that you think atheism is a belief that there is no god.

You were quite explicitly contrasting belief in god vs belief there is no god. Perhaps you were drunk at the time or have another reason for posting words that you no longer wish to take ownership of. I'm a reasonable person, so just send me a private explanation and we'll move on....you have my word that this mishap wont be mentioned again once you acknowledge it.

 

[Crankitup]

Perhaps, but then again....isn't is possible we're going around in circles because of your refusal to acknowledge, much less explain, your own posts?

"An argument that absolutely no one has died because of a belief there is no God is just as facile as arguing that millions have died because of faith in God."
Please explain

Any objective observer would come to the conclusion that you think atheism is a belief that there is no god.

You were quite explicitly contrasting belief in god vs belief there is no god. Perhaps you were drunk at the time or have another reason for posting words that you no longer wish to take ownership of. I'm a reasonable person, so just send me a private explanation and we'll move on....you have my word that this mishap wont be mentioned again once you acknowledge it.

If you still don't understand let's look at the context. In #3,198 you said that millions had been killed because of religion and zero had been killed because of atheism.

My response was it was facile to argue that no one has died because of a belief there is no God. I think everyone can agree that atheism isn't a religious belief. Yet despite that you claimed in #3,216 that I had defined it as such. Do you get it now? Still struggling? Atheists believe there is no God. Agreed? Is it a religious belief? No. Agreed?

Hopefully we can dispense with straining out the gnats now and move onto the bigger picture.

 

[Seeds]

Atheism is best defined as the lack of belief in gods, which isn't necessarily related to naturalism. I know atheists who believe in stupid s**t like astrology.

If you dont believe solely in naturalism then you are open to spirtualism in some shape. There isnt a lot of difference between spirits and gods as far as I can tell.

 

[Roylion]

Agnosticism is just a holding place for people to stay temporarily until they find sufficient information to place themselves in the camp of atheist or theist afaic. Intellectual cowardice or pure ignorance are the only reasons anyone should label themselves agnostic.

I label myself agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything ouside time and space.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that exists outside time and space is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe, definitely doesn't exist. What I do believe that I or anyone else cannot know the existance of such phenomena.

I also have no evidence that fairies and / or elves or any other being, born of the human imagination that might be found in various forms of literature or story-telling don't actually exist either. Yet as I or anyone else on the planet, both past and present, have never observed certain beings to actually exist, either now (in living form) or in the near or distant past (as remains or fossils), it would seem difficult to agree with a claim that they did or do.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than when others invoke said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency.

The longer someone has been an agnostic, the more I lean towards them being cowards.

Are you agnostic in respect to every claim that hasn't yet been disproved? If I told you that I saw a flying elephant outside my window last night, you couldn't prove I was wrong.

I couldn't. But as I have never observed such a phenomena, your claim that flying elephants exist exists by faith alone and as such I myself would see no reason to accept your claim. Until I observe such a phenomena myself, my own personal stance is that I shall not incorporate any belief in flying elephants into my own life, even thpugh I cannot disprove such a phenomena conclusively.

However I have observed elephants and I have observed things that fly for myself, but not a combination of those two things. However neither of those phenomena are outside time and space and therefore I do know something of them. The probability of both being combined is low, based on the empirical evidence that has been gathered to date.

If a self-proclaimed Nigerian prince offers you $1 million as long as you give him $1000 first to cover bank fees for the withdrawal, you can't be completely certain that he wont pay you.

If you're sitting on the fence on believing his claim (self-identified agnostic), the logical thing to do would be to pay him that $1000 as the potential ROI makes it worth your while.

Is there evidence that millionaire Nigerian princes exist? We do know that Nigerian millionaires such as Aliko Dangote, Mike Adenuga, Abdul Samad Rabiu and Folorunshp Alakija exist. We also know that Nigerian Princes such as Yemisi Shyllon exist. Whether you pay them or not is dependent on a judgement you make as to their honesty.

Only in respect to religion do people play the agnostic card and think themselves intelligent. In practical matters, few people are that stupid.

Given that religions deal with the supernatural (that is phenomena outside time and space), agnostics hold that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything outside time and space.

 

[CM9000]

I label myself agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that exists outside time and space is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe, definitely doesn't exist. What I do believe that I or anyone else cannot know the existance of such phenomena.

I also have no evidence that fairies and / or elves or any other being, born of the human imagination that might be found in various forms of literature or story-telling don't actually exist either. Yet as I or anyone else on the planet, both past and present, have never observed certain beings to actually exist, either now (in living form) or in the near or distant past (as remains or fossils), it would seem difficult to agree with a claim that they did or do.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than when others invoke said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency.



Are you agnostic in respect to every claim that hasn't yet been disproved? If I told you that I saw a flying elephant outside my window last night, you couldn't prove I was wrong.

I couldn't. But as I have never observed such a phenomena, your claim that flying elephants exist exists by faith alone and as such Imyself would see no reason to accept your claim. Until I observe such a phenomena myself. My own personal stance is that I shall not incorporate any belief in flying elephants into my own life, even thpugh I cannot disprove such a phenomena conclusively.

However I have observed elephants and I have observed things that fly for myself, but not a combination of those two things. However neither of those phenomena are outside time and space and therefore I do know something of them. The robability of both being combined is low, based on the empirical evidence that has been gathered to date.



If you're sitting on the fence on believing his claim (self-identified agnostic), the logical thing to do would be to pay him that $1000 as the potential ROI makes it worth your while.

Is there evidence that millionaire Nigerian princes exist? We do know that Nigerian millionaires such as Aliko Dangote, Mike Adenuga, Abdul Samad Rabiu and Folorunshp Alakija exist. We also know that Nigerian Princes such as Yemisi Shyllon exist. Whether you pay them or not is dependent on a judgement you make as to their honesty.



Given that religions deal with the supernatural (that is phenomena outside time and space), agnostics hold that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena.

The belief that things can only known by experience is not really a tenable position. Under this criteria, a number of things in theory couldn't be known, such as the existence of numbers. How do you prove the existence of the number one? If we can only determine whether things are true by observing them "in the past or present", then mathematics isn't provable. Likewise, given knowledge can only be known by first hand experience, according to this view, then you have to admit the possibility that there could be, in existence, planets in space that don't follow the laws of gravity.

 

[Roylion]

The belief that things can only known by experience is not really a tenable position. Under this criteria, a number of things in theory couldn't be known, such as the existence of numbers. How do you prove the existence of the number one?

Number 1 is an imaginary concept that exists within a number system that humans adopt. God as a spirit outside time and space is unknowable.

Likewise, given knowledge can only be known by first hand experience, according to this view, then you have to admit the possibility that there could be, in existence, planets in space that don't follow the laws of gravity.

Yep. Of course there's a possibility.

However as far as we know a planet is a celestial body with a finite mass and as far as we know it is impossible for a body with mass to have zero gravity. Moreover, gravity is the very basic force that holds the planet's mass together in the first place.

Certainly nothing is known about planets in space that don't follow the laws of gravity.

Are these planets outside time and space? Is it likely / possible that a planet with no gravity to be to be discovered? Possibly. Until that definitive proof is presented, I'll remain undecided on the matter, thugh leaning towards the negative, based on the evidence we do have.

 

[CM9000]

Number 1 is an imaginary concept that exists within a number system that humans adopt. God as a spirit outside time and space is unknowable.



Yep. Of course there is. Certainly nothing is known planets in space that don't follow the laws of gravity. Are these planets outside time and space? Is it likely to be to be known? Possibly. Until definitive proof is represented, I'll remain agnostic on this matter.

That isn't entirely consistent with what you said, though. Going by your previous post, it seems to me that the truth, for you, can be validated only by experience, supported with empirical evidence from the world. As such, given the number one doesn't correspond to any feature in the physical world, how do you know it exists?

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, however.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I also have no evidence that fairies and / or elves or any other being, born of the human imagination that might be found in various forms of literature or story-telling don't actually exist either. Yet as I or anyone else on the planet, both past and present, have never observed certain beings to actually exist, either now (in living form) or in the near or distant past (as remains or fossils), it would seem difficult to agree with a claim that they did or do.

So you believe there’s a chance they may exist?

 

[Roylion]

So you believe there’s a chance they may exist?

I can't prove that they don't, but there's no evidence that they do. Given that no-one has ever observed those beings to actually exist, either now (in living form) or in the near or distant past (as remains or fossils), it would seem difficult to agree with a claim that they did exist or do exist.

 

[Roylion]

That isn't entirely consistent with what you said, though. Going by your previous post, it seems to me that the truth, for you, can be validated only by experience, supported with empirical evidence from the world. As such, given the number one doesn't correspond to any feature in the physical world, how do you know it exists?

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, however.

I'll clarify my position then. In regards to 'god', nothing outside time and space can be known to us. Nor can be disproven. As to whether 'god' exists, no one knows or can know. Therefore being agnostic on this matter is the only possible option.

 

[Boston tiger]

I label myself agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything ouside time and space.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that exists outside time and space is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe, definitely doesn't exist. What I do believe that I or anyone else cannot know the existance of such phenomena.

I also have no evidence that fairies and / or elves or any other being, born of the human imagination that might be found in various forms of literature or story-telling don't actually exist either. Yet as I or anyone else on the planet, both past and present, have never observed certain beings to actually exist, either now (in living form) or in the near or distant past (as remains or fossils), it would seem difficult to agree with a claim that they did or do.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than when others invoke said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency.



I couldn't. But as I have never observed such a phenomena, your claim that flying elephants exist exists by faith alone and as such I myself would see no reason to accept your claim. Until I observe such a phenomena myself, my own personal stance is that I shall not incorporate any belief in flying elephants into my own life, even thpugh I cannot disprove such a phenomena conclusively.

However I have observed elephants and I have observed things that fly for myself, but not a combination of those two things. However neither of those phenomena are outside time and space and therefore I do know something of them. The probability of both being combined is low, based on the empirical evidence that has been gathered to date.



Is there evidence that millionaire Nigerian princes exist? We do know that Nigerian millionaires such as Aliko Dangote, Mike Adenuga, Abdul Samad Rabiu and Folorunshp Alakija exist. We also know that Nigerian Princes such as Yemisi Shyllon exist. Whether you pay them or not is dependent on a judgement you make as to their honesty.



Given that religions deal with the supernatural (that is phenomena outside time and space), agnostics hold that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything outside time and space.

Do you believe that outside of time and space is a reality?

 

[Total Power]

I'll clarify my position then. In regards to 'god', nothing outside time and space can be known to us. Nor can be disproven. As to whether 'god' exists, no one knows or can know. Therefore being agnostic on this matter is the only possible option.

Different planes of existence can mathematically be proven. Granted we can't "observe" them, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. As Sir Roger Penrose will tell you, the universe is mental, there is a physical reality, mental reality and abstract reality. Give his papers are read, it's certainly fascinating. One of the brightest minds of our time. Also Freeman Dyson is of the same opinion.

 

[CM9000]

I'll clarify my position then. In regards to 'god', nothing outside time and space can be known to us. Nor can be disproven. As to whether 'god' exists, no one knows or can know. Therefore being agnostic on this matter is the only possible option.

So, when you say that "nothing outside time and space can be known to us", does this only apply to the topic at hand, or to all truth claims?

 

[Evolved1]

I label myself agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything ouside time and space.

My view is that any honest and sane person would call themselves agnostic. Christianity is based on belief rather than knowledge, so a majority of Christians would call themselves believers rather than knowers.

Agnostic is a meaningless label in isolation. More interesting is whether someone claims to be an agnostic believer or agnostic unbeliever. I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't believe in any gods and I don't claim to have absolute knowledge regarding the existence or non-existence of deities.

What I will say with near certainty is that the gods of mainstream religions do not exist. The existence of the Abrahamic god(s) can and have been disproved to my satisfaction.

Ignosticism is an interesting variation that I've seen added to the mix, so it's fair to say that there are many valid ways of looking at the question. The divide of all people into atheist or theist is far more meaningful afaic.

Do you believe in any gods?
Yes = theist.
No = atheist.

Do you know whether any gods exist?
Yes = gnostic
No = atheist

tldr; I'm arguing that there's no such thing as an agnostic as separated from atheism and theism.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that exists outside time and space is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe, definitely doesn't exist. What I do believe that I or anyone else cannot know the existance of such phenomena.

I also have no evidence that fairies and / or elves or any other being, born of the human imagination that might be found in various forms of literature or story-telling don't actually exist either. Yet as I or anyone else on the planet, both past and present, have never observed certain beings to actually exist, either now (in living form) or in the near or distant past (as remains or fossils), it would seem difficult to agree with a claim that they did or do.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than when others invoke said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency.


I couldn't. But as I have never observed such a phenomena, your claim that flying elephants exist exists by faith alone and as such I myself would see no reason to accept your claim. Until I observe such a phenomena myself, my own personal stance is that I shall not incorporate any belief in flying elephants into my own life, even thpugh I cannot disprove such a phenomena conclusively.

However I have observed elephants and I have observed things that fly for myself, but not a combination of those two things. However neither of those phenomena are outside time and space and therefore I do know something of them. The probability of both being combined is low, based on the empirical evidence that has been gathered to date.


Is there evidence that millionaire Nigerian princes exist? We do know that Nigerian millionaires such as Aliko Dangote, Mike Adenuga, Abdul Samad Rabiu and Folorunshp Alakija exist. We also know that Nigerian Princes such as Yemisi Shyllon exist. Whether you pay them or not is dependent on a judgement you make as to their honesty.


Given that religions deal with the supernatural (that is phenomena outside time and space), agnostics hold that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything outside time and space.

You're an atheist afaic. When you stop capitalisting 'god', you'll get a free angry atheist badge in the mail.

 

[Evolved1]

If you dont believe solely in naturalism then you are open to spirtualism in some shape. There isnt a lot of difference between spirits and gods as far as I can tell.

True. Atheists are defined by what they don't believe rather than what they do. You can dismiss the theory of evolution and be an atheist.

 

[Evolved1]

So you believe there’s a chance they may exist?

 

[Seeds]

True. Atheists are defined by what they don't believe rather than what they do. You can dismiss the theory of evolution and be an atheist.

Athiests believe the universe was created by natural forces. That is what we believe. You could argue we dont jave an explanation about what created the natural forces but we could counter that religious people dont have an explanation about what created god. We believe in things just like religious people do. Its just we use empirical evidence to justify those beliefs rather then faith. We dont have absence of belief. Thats agnostics.

 

[M Malice]

What I will say with near certainty is that the gods of mainstream religions do not exist. The existence of the Abrahamic god(s) can and have been disproved to my satisfaction.

Agree 100%, the belief in an institutionalised religious judgemental, participatory, omnipresent, omniscient creator is based on superstition and ignorance from a less educated time in our history, hopefully it one day goes the way of the dinosaur.